EFFECTS OF PRESENTATION MODES ON THE LEARNING OF SIGN LANGUAGE AMONG HEARING IMPAIRED STUDENTS WITH DIFFERENT COGNITIVE STYLES
V. CHADRA SHAKARAN A/L V. V. MENON
UNIVERSITI SAINS MALAYSIA
2016
EFFECTS OF PRESENTATION MODES ON THE LEARNING OF SIGN LANGUAGE AMONG
HEARING IMPAIRED STUDENTS WITH DIFFERENT COGNITIVE STYLES
by
V. CHADRA SHAKARAN A/L V. V. MENON
Thesis submitted in fullfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
AUGUST 2016
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First and foremost, I would like to say thanks to God for blessing me and giving me the strength to undertake this journey. Next I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Professor Dr Fong Soon Fook and his wife for their encouragement, love and support throughout this journey. Without his guidance and advice, I would not be able to continue and complete this work. My tribute also goes to my co-supervisors Dr Aznan Che Ahmad and Dr Mohd Ali Shamsudin for their constant motivation and assistance. I am enormously grateful to Miss Audrey Liew, Miss Rebecca, Mr Edmond, Mr Raymond, Mr and Mrs Ramal for their assistance and support in completing this work.
Special thanks to the Dean, Professor Dr. Hairul Nizam Ismail, the Deputy Dean, Associate Prof. Dr Shaik Abdul Malik Mohamed Ismail, and the administrative staff of the School of Educational Studies, USM for providing facilities, advice and support. Furthermore I would like to thank the headmasters, teachers and students from the special education schools for the hearing impaired for their collaboration. My profound acknowledgement to the Director of the Educational Planning and Research Division, and the Director of the Special Education Department, Ministry of Education Malaysia for their assistance. On top of that I would like to thank the principal, teachers and students of SMK Darul Ridwan for their facilitation and motivation.
Last but not least, I would like to give my heartiest thanks and love to my beloved wife, Thamil Selvi Sabapathy and my children Prasanadevi, Ishveraj, Bhismer, Gauthamen and Shamala for their unconditional love, prayers, continuous inspiration and support throughout all these years that kept me going to complete this wonderful journey. To all my family members and wonderful friends, I sincerely thank you from the depth of my heart for making this dream come true.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF APPENDICES LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES ABSTRAK
ABSTRACT
ii iv ix x xii xv xvii
CHAPTER 1- INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Problem Statement 4
1.3 Purpose of the Study 11
1.4 Research Objectives 12
1.5 Research Questions 12
1.6 Research Hypotheses 14
1.7 Significance of the Study 16
1.8 Theoretical Framework 17
1.8.1 Paivio's Dual Coding Theory 18
1.8.2 Sweller's Cognitive Load Theory 19
1.8.3 Mayer's Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning 20 1.8.4 Cummins' Linguistic Interdependence Theory 22
1.9 Research Framework 24
1.10 Limitations of the Study 24
1.11 Definition of Terms 25
1.12 Summary 29
CHAPTER 2- LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction 30
2.2 The Hearing Impaired 30
2.3 Types of Hearing Loss 31
2.4 Degrees of Hearing Loss 31
2.5 Assistive Technology for the Hearing Impaired 32
2.6 Language and Literacy among Hearing Impaired Students 32
2.7 Sign Language 34
2.8 Manually Coded Language 35
2.8.1 Kod Tangan Bahasa Melayu 35
2.9 Theoretical Perspectives 36
2.9.1 Paivio’s Dual Coding Theory 36
2.9.2 Sweller’s Cognitive Load Theory 39
2.9.3 Mayer’s Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning 43 2.9.4 Cummins' Linguistic Interdependence Theory 51
2.10 Cognitive Styles and Learning 55
2.11 A Review on Existing Sign Language Learning Resources 59 2.11.1 Malaysian Sign Language Learning Resources 60 2.11.1(a) Malaysian Sign Language Website 60
2.11.1(b) MySlang 60
2.11.1(c) i-KOD 61
2.12 Summary 64
CHAPTER 3- METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction 66
3.2 Research Design 66
3.3 Variables 68
3.4 Research Sample and Sampling 69
3.5 Instructional Material 70
3.6 Instruments 70
3.6.1 Sign Language Test 70
3.6.2 Group Embedded Figures Test 74
3.7 Validity and Reliability 75
3.8 Pilot Study 77
3.9 Research Procedures 79
3.10 Statistical Analysis 82
3.11 Summary 83
CHAPTER 4- DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT
4.1 Introduction 84
4.2 Courseware Development 84
4.3 ADDIE Instructional System Design Model 85
4.3.1 Phase 1: Analyze 86
4.3.1(a) Resources 87
4.3.1(b) Learning Contents 87
4.3.1(c) Learner Characteristics 88
4.3.1(d) Concept Map 89
4.3.2 Phase 2: Design 90
4.3.3 Phase 3: Development 96
4.3.3(a) Software and Hardware 96
4.3.3(a)(i) Articulate Storyline 96
4.3.3(a)(ii) Articulate Quizmaker 97
4.3.3(a)(iii) Sony HDR-PJ810 Handycam Camcorder 99 4.3.3(a)(iv) Sony Vegas Movie Studio HD Platinum 99 4.3.3(a)(v) Articulate Video Encoder 101
4.3.3(a)(vi) Adobe Illustrator 101
4.3.3(a)(vii) Alpha Testing 102
4.3.4 Phase 4: Implementation 103
4.3.4(a) Pilot Study 104
4.3.4(b) Main Study 104
4.3.5 Phase 5: Evaluation 105
4.4 Summary 106
CHAPTER 5- RESULTS
5.1 Introduction 107
5.2 Data Analyses 108
5.2.1 Characteristics of the Sample 108
5.2.2 Distribution of Students 108
5.2.3 Results of Statistical Analyses 109
5.2.4 Pretest Scores Statistical Analyses 110
5.2.4(a) Descriptive Statistics 110
5.2.4(b) Homogeneity of Pretest Scores 113
5.2.4(c) Correlation between Pretest Scores and 114 Posttest Scores
5.2.5 Statistical Analyses of Posttest Scores 116
5.2.5(a) Descriptive Statistics 116
5.2.5(b) Assumptions Testing for One-way ANOVA 117 5.2.5(c) Assumptions Testing for One-way ANCOVA 125
5.2.6 Main Effects 129
5.2.7 Interaction Effects 135
5.2.7(a) Presentation Modes and Cognitive Styles 135
5.2.8 Testing of Null Hypotheses 139
5.2.8(a) Hypothesis 1 140
5.2.8(b) Hypothesis 2 141
5.3 Summary of Results Analyses 144
CHAPTER 6- DISCUSSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION
6.1 Introduction 146
6.2 Discussions 149
6.2.1 Effects of Presentation Modes on Achievement Scores in 149 Learning Sign Language
6.2.2 Cognitive Style and Presentation Modes Related to 157 Achievement Scores
6.3 Implication of the Study 163
6.3.1 Theoretical Implications 163
6.3.2 Practical Implications 165
6.4 Recommendations for Future Research 167
6.5 Conclusion 168
REFERENCES 171
LIST OF APPENDICES
Page
Appendix A Preliminary Survey 215
Appendix B Preliminary Survey Analysis 217
Appendix C Sign Language Test (Pretest) 219
Appendix D Sign Language Test (Posttest) 221
Appendix E Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) 223
(Malay Version)
Appendix F Examples of Tracing Simple Shape in Complex 229 Diagram
Appendix G Cronbach's Alpha Reliability Analysis- 231
Sign Language Test
Appendix H Cronbach's Alpha Reliability Analysis- 233
Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT)
Appendix I Sign Language Courseware Manual 234
Appendix J List of Words 239
Appendix K Analysis Phase Evaluation Form 243
Appendix L Design Phase Evaluation Form 244
Appendix M Implementation Phase Evaluation Form 246
Appendix N Students' Comments 247
Appendix O Research Permission from School of Educational 248 Studies, University of Science, Malaysia
Appendix P Endorsement for Change in the Research Title 249 Appendix Q Research Permission from Malaysian Education 250
of Planning Division
Appendix R Research Permission from Ministry of Education, 251 Department of Special Education
Appendix S Data for Analysis- SPSS windows version 20.0 253
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1.1 Preliminary Survey Findings 8
Table 2.1 Severity of Hearing Loss in Decibels (dB) 32 Table 2.2 Comparison between existing sign language learning resources 63
Table 3.1 Random Sampling 70
Table 3.2 Comments given by the SMEs’ on the Sign Language Test 72
Table 3.3 Reliability Analysis of Pretest and GEFT 78
Table 3.4 Research Schedule 81
Table 5.1 Students Distribution among the Presentation Modes 109 Table 5.2 Descriptive Statistics of Pretest Scores of Presentation Modes 110 Table 5.3 Skewness and Kurtosis Statistics of Pretest Scores of the 111
Presentation Modes
Table 5.4 Levene's Test of Homogeneity of Variance 113 Table 5.5 Results of One-way ANOVA for Pretest Scores Between 114
Groups
Table 5.6 Correlations Between the Pretest Scores and the Posttest 115 Scores
Table 5.7 Descriptive Statistics of Mean Posttest Scores of the 116 Presentation Modes
Table 5.8 Tests of Normality for Posttest Scores 118
Table 5.9 Test of Homogeneity of Variance for Posttest Scores Between 124 the Presentation Modes
Table 5.10 ANOVA Results for Posttest Scores between Groups 125
Table 5.11 Homogeneity of Regression Slopes Test 129
Table 5.12 One-way ANCOVA Results for Posttest Scores by Presentation 131 Modes with Pretest as Covariate
Table 5.13 Pairwise Comparisons for Presentation Modes 133
Table 5.14 Means, Standard Deviations, Adjusted Means, and Standard 134 Errors of Posttest Scores by Presentation Modes
Table 5.15 Two-way ANCOVA for Posttest Scores by Presentation Modes 136 and Cognitive Styles with Pretest Scores as Covariate
Table 5.16 Estimated Marginal Means of Cognitive Styles 137 Table 5.17 Estimated Marginal Means by Presentation Modes and 138
Cognitive Styles
Table 5.18 Pairwise Comparison for Cognitive Styles 142
LIST OF FIGURES
Page Figure 1.1 Sign language video, text and image (SLTI) 11
Figure 1.2 Sign language video and text (SLT) 11
Figure 1.3 Sign language video and image (SLI) 12
Figure 1.4 Theoretical framework 18
Figure 1.5 Dual Coding Theory 19
Figure 1.6 Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning 21
Figure 1.7 “Dual Iceberg” Representation of bilingual proficiency 23
Figure 1.8 Research framework 24
Figure 2.1 Visual representation of the Cognitive Load Theory 40
Figure 2.2 Linking meaning to print 54
Figure 2.3 A screenshot of MSL website 60
Figure 2.4 A screenshot of MySlang dictionary 61
Figure 2.5 A screenshot of i-KOD dictionary 61
Figure 2.6 A screenshot of the proposed courseware 64
Figure 3.1 Presentation modes X cognitive styles - a3 X 2 67 quasi-experiment design
Figure 3.2 Non-equivalent control group design 68
Figure 3.3 Research variables 68
Figure 3.4 Bloom’s Revised Digital Taxonomy 74
Figure 3.5 Research design of the study 79
Figure 4.1 ADDIE Instructional System Design Model 86
Figure 4.2 Task and concept map of the courseware 90
Figure 4.3 Structure of the courseware 92
Figure 4.4 Flowchart of the courseware 93
Figure 4.5 Storyboard template for SLTI mode 94
Figure 4.6 A screenshot of the SLTI mode 94
Figure 4.7 Storyboard template for SLT mode 94
Figure 4.8 A screenshot of the SLT mode 95
Figure 4.9 Storyboard template for SLI mode 95
Figure 4.10 A screenshot of the SLI mode 95
Figure 4.11 A screenshot of sign language video, text and image 97 compilation in Articulate Storyline
Figure 4.12 A screenshot of True/ False quiz question using Articulate 98 Quizmaker
Figure 4.13 A screenshot of Multiple Choice quiz question using 98 Articulate Quizmaker
Figure 4.14 A screenshot of the quiz results using Articulate 98 Quizmaker
Figure 4.15 Sign language video recording in progress 99 Figure 4.16 A screenshot editing a recording of a series of words in 100
sign language video using Sony Vegas Movie Studio
Figure 4.17 A screenshot of a word in sign language video split from the 100 original recording using Sony Vegas Movie Studio
Figure 4.18 A screenshot of the word in sign language video rendered and 100 and saved in wmv. format using Sony Vegas Movie Studio
Figure 4.19 A screenshot of an image created using Adobe Illustrator 101 Figure 4.20 A screenshot of the image in colour using Adobe Illustrator 102 Figure 4.21 Publish the courseware in CD format using Articulate 103
Storyline
Figure 4.22 Published files output from Articulate Storyline for CD format 103 Figure 5.1 Normal Q-Q plot of pretest scores for SLTI mode 112 Figure 5.2 Normal Q-Q plot of pretest scores for SLT mode 112 Figure 5.3 Normal Q-Q plot of pretest scores for SLI mode 113
Figure 5.4 Histogram of posttest scores for the total sample 120 Figure 5.5 Normal Q-Q plot of the total posttest scores 120 Figure 5.6 Histogram of posttest scores for the SLTI mode 121 Figure 5.7 Normal Q-Q plot of posttest scores for SLTI mode 121 Figure 5.8 Histogram of posttest scores for the SLT mode 122 Figure 5.9 Normal Q-Q plot of posttest scores for SLT mode 122 Figure 5.10 Histogram of posttest scores for the SLI mode 123 Figure 5.11 Normal Q-Q plot of posttest scores for SLT mode 123 Figure 5.12 Scatter plot showing the relationship between pretest and 127
posttest scores for the SLTI mode
Figure 5.13 Scatter plot showing the relationship between pretest and 127 posttest scores for the SLT mode
Figure 5.14 Scatter plot showing the relationship between pretest and 128 posttest scores for the SLI mode
Figure 5.15 Profile plot of estimated marginal means by presentation modes 135 Figure 5.16 Plot of interaction between presentation modes and and 139
cognitive styles for adjusted means posttest scores
Figure 6.1 Linking meaning to sign language, image and print 155
KESAN MOD PERSEMBAHAN DALAM PEMBELAJARAN BAHASA ISYARAT DALAM KALANGAN PELAJAR BERMASALAH
PENDENGARAN PELBAGAI GAYA KOGNITIF
ABSTRAK
Kajian kuantitatif ini menyiasat kesan mod persembahan ke atas pembelajaran bahasa isyarat dalam kalangan 147 orang pelajar bermasalah pendengaran di sekolah rendah pendidikan khas di Malaysia. Suatu reka bentuk faktorial kuasi-eksperimen 2 x 3 dengan ukuran berulang bagi pemboleh ubah moderator dalam reka bentuk praujian-pascaujian kumpulan kawalan tidak setara telah disesuaikan dalam kajian ini. Pemboleh ubah bebas adalah tiga mod perisian koswer iaitu video Bahasa Isyarat, Teks dan Imej (SLTI), video Bahasa Isyarat dan Teks (SLT) dan video Bahasa Isyarat dan Imej (SLI). Pemboleh ubah moderator adalah pelbagai gaya kognitif (FD dan FI). Pemboleh ubah bersandar adalah pencapaian pelajar seperti yang diukur oleh skor pascaujian. Kajian ini terdiri daripada dua bahagian, iaitu pembangunan dan penilaian. Dalam bahagian pertama, 3 mod persembahan direka dan dibangunkan. Dalam bahagian kedua, kajian ini mengkaji kesan tiga mod persembahan bahasa isyarat multimedia ke atas pelajar bermasalah pendengaran pelbagai gaya kognitif. Analisis statistik ANOVA dan ANCOVA telah dijalankan untuk menguji hipotesis dalam kajian ini. Hasil kajian menunjukkan bahawa pelajar bermasalah pendengaran mencapai perbezaan yang signifikan dalam skor pascaujian dalam tiga mod persembahan. Pelajar bermasalah pendengaran yang menggunakan mod persembahan SLTI mencapai markah pascaujian tertinggi. Kajian ini juga menunjukkan bahawa tidak terdapat perbezaan
yang signifikan antara skor pascaujian yang dicapai oleh pelajar bermasalah pendengaran dengan pelbagai gaya kognitif dalam tiga mod persembahan. Ia juga menunjukkan bahawa tidak terdapat kesan interaksi yang signifikan antara kaedah rawatan dan gaya kognitif. Kesimpulannya, kajian ini menunjukkan bahawa mod SLTI dengan video bahasa isyarat, teks dan imej adalah paling berkesan dalam pembelajaran bahasa isyarat.
EFFECTS OF PRESENTATION MODES ON THE LEARNING OF SIGN LANGUAGE AMONG HEARING IMPAIRED STUDENTS WITH
DIFFERENT COGNITIVE STYLES
ABSTRACT
This quantitative study investigated the effects of presentation modes on the learning of sign language among 147 hearing impaired students in special education primary schools for the hearing impaired in Malaysia. This study consists of two parts, namely, development and evaluation. A 2 x 3 quasi-experimental factorial design with repeated measure for the moderator variable in a non-equivalent control group pretest-posttest design was adopted in this study. The independent variables are the three presentation modes of the courseware namely Sign Language Video, Text and Image (SLTI), Sign Language Video and Text (SLT) and Sign Language Video and Image (SLI). The moderator variable is the different cognitive styles (FD and FI). The dependent variable is the students' achievement scores as measured by the posttest scores. In the first part, the presentation modes were designed and developed. In the second part, this study investigated the effects of the three presentation modes on hearing impaired students of different cognitive styles.
ANOVA and ANCOVA analyses were conducted to test the null hypotheses in this study. The results revealed the hearing impaired students attained significant difference in the mean achievement scores in the three presentation modes. The hearing impaired students using the SLTI mode attained the highest mean achievement score. The study also revealed that there was no significant difference among the mean achievement scores attained by hearing impaired students with
different cognitive styles among the three presentation modes. It also showed that there were no significant interaction effect among the presentation modes and cognitive styles. In conclusion, this study indicated that the SLTI mode consists of sign language video, text and image is most effective in the learning of sign language.
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
There are 58,706 hearing impaired people registered in Malaysia (Social Statistics Bulletin, 2014). According to Schirmer (2001), hearing impaired people are a unique culture group with own customs, norms, habits, thought patterns, language, and common experiences. Hearing impaired people use sign language to communicate and Ethnologue listed 130 sign languages throughout the world (Lewis, 2009).
Sign language use a combination of body language, gestures, facial expression and eye gaze to communicate among hearing impaired people (Cherry, 2012; Ahmad & Ghani, 2011; Liwicki & Everingham, 2009; Trevor & Adam, 2007).
For example, a question can be shown by raised eyebrows, widened eyes, and leaning the head forward slightly. According to Valli and Lucas (1998), sign language is a well-structured and independent language.
American Sign Language (ASL), British Sign Language (BSL), Australian Sign Language (Auslan), and New Zealand Sign Language (NZSL) are all used in predominately English speaking countries (Gordon, 2008). Malaysian Sign Language (MSL) and Kod Tangan Bahasa Melayu (KTBM) are used in the hearing impaired schools for the purpose of communication and teaching the Malay language (Savita and Athirah, 2011).
Golos (2010a) stated that the academic achievement of the hearing impaired students based on their literacy rate was very low. According to Holt (1993) and Traxler (2000), hearing impaired students read below a fourth grade level.
Marschark, Green, Hindmarsh, and Walker (2000) stated because of the low academic level affected the hearing impaired students' social and cognitive development. Limitations also include minimized ability to organize and produce from memory the associations between concepts (Marschark, 2003). This results in challenges to the child’s ability to understand real-world situations socially or emotionally (Cambra, 2005; Rieffe, Terwogt, & Smit, 2003).
A hearing impaired child in the family affects parent-child relationships and communication patterns (Ahmad & Ghani, 2004; Christiansen & Leigh, 2004;
Marschark, 1993). According to Mitchell and Karchmer (2004), ninety percent of hearing impaired children has hearing families who need to learn sign language.
Normally, the hearing impaired child start learning sign language skills late because of the difficulties in sharing the spoken language in the family (Marschark, 2001).
According to Golos (2010a), hearing impaired students' enter school with limited language experience. Biemiller (1999) stated that late development in spoken language among children affects reading comprehension and academic achievement.
Mayberry's (2002) study found a significant correlation between sign language skills and reading skills. Morford and Mayberry (2000) in their study on tests for second language acquisition of both signed and spoken language stated that individuals exposed to languages at earlier ages consistently do better than individuals exposed to language at a later age. Hearing impaired children who have acquired American
Sign Language (ASL) from birth did better than hearing impaired children who acquired ASL at a later age on language skills (Mayberry, 1993). According to Mitchell and Karchmer (2004), ninety percent of hearing impaired children is born to hearing parents who do not know sign language and only twenty percent of parents of hearing impaired children become fluent in ASL. According to Vaccari and Marshark (1997), early language intervention is needed to help hearing impaired children to improve their language skills.
Kochkin, Luxford, Northern, Mason, and Tharpe (2007) found hearing impaired students' poor linguistic skills; affect their social interaction, language and communication. Sign language is crucial for the hearing impaired child, their family and friends so that the hearing impaired child is exposed to as much language as possible. If a child is to attend school then oral and written communication is important too. A hearing impaired student may not have the language skills to allow him to keep up with his hearing peers.
Hearing impaired students are taught using different approaches; auditory- oral, auditory-verbal, cued speech, finger spelling, Total Communication, oral English and bilingual method. In Singapore, Total Communication approach is used to teach English to the hearing impaired (Phua, 2004). In Japan, the bilingual method is used by hearing impaired students to learn Japanese language (reading and writing) using Japanese Sign Language (Honna & Kato, 2003). English, Hindi and other languages in the Indian Continent are taught using Indian Sign Language using the bilingual method (Zeshan, Vasishta, & Sethna, 2005).
According to Baker (2001), Cummins (2000), and Freeman and Freeman, (1998), educators are encouraging the use of bilingual method for hearing impaired students to learn English, French, Spanish, Italian or Germany as a second language in the European countries. Nover and Andrews (1998) have proposed using American Sign Language (ASL) to teach English to hearing impaired children.
According to Johnson (1989), sign language as the primary language may form the basis for learning English as a second-language, since ASL provides hearing impaired children a visual means to access language and literacy. Malaysian hearing impaired students depend on the Malaysian Sign Language (MSL) for communication and they have low proficiency in the Malay language (Malaysian Federation of the Deaf, 2000). The hearing impaired students are taught the Malay language using Kod Tangan Bahasa Melayu (KTBM) and MSL (Malaysian Federa- tion of the Deaf, 2000).
The proposed study emerged as a timely respond to the challenges faced by the hearing impaired students in learning the sign language. This study will provide a learning resource for the hearing impaired students, parents with hearing impaired children and the hearing community to learn sign language. This research is to examine the effects of the three presentation modes on hearing impaired students with different cognitive styles (Field dependent and Field independent) in learning sign language.
1.2 Problem Statement
The hearing impaired community seldom received sufficient language intervention to consistently achieve linguistic competencies that allow for effective
communication, socialization, and thinking skills. They continue to suffer from significant delays in social skills as well as from difficulties in cognitive development, including academic areas such as literacy, math, and problem solving, as compared to hearing peers (Marschark, 2003). According to Schirmer and McGough (2005), hearing impaired students perform lower on standardized measures of achievement and graduate with fourth grade level reading skills compared to hearing peers. They also display poor quality written skills and show weakness in comprehension and use of function words in written text (Channon &
Sayers, 2007). The hearing impaired students also demonstrate poorer linguistic and academic outcomes than their hearing peers (Rieffe et al., 2003). According to Erting (2001), the majority of hearing impaired students are coming to school without the same language skills and background knowledge as their hearing students. Based on the importance of this communication, there are problems among Malaysian hearing impaired students in studying the same syllabus as the typical hearing student. They need to sit for major examinations such as UPSR, PMR and SPM (Yasin, Bari, &
Hassan, 2013). The President of the Malaysian Federation of the Deaf (MFD), Mohamad Sazali Shaari stated that many hearing impaired students fail every year especially in the Malay Language and this is a compulsory subject in any major examination, which makes them to fail the whole examination (Abu Hassan, 2012).
The bottom line is that the academic achievement remains an area of concern for the hearing impaired students and they are often left behind, especially in terms of learning because of deafness.
There are a number of studies done in Malaysia associated with multimedia in hearing impaired education. The i-Kod was developed to enable users to learn Kod
Tangan Bahasa Melayu (KTBM) (Muharram, 2007). The i-Kod is a translator of the KTBM to Malay language. Next, the MySlang dictionary was developed to assist the learning and teaching of MSL. The instructions in MySlang dictionary is in English.
The content of the dictionary was developed based on the book entitled; Malaysian Sign Language, published by the Malaysian Federation of the Deaf. Two 3D animated human characters (male and female) were used to animate the signing of words. MySlang dictionary has 216 daily used words (Lim, 2008).
The e-Sign Dictionary, an electronic MSL dictionary was developed for the use of the hearing impaired community and the general public. It is a couresware that provided instructions in English, Malay, and Chinese language. The dictionary has 500 words with animation to illustrate the signing of each word, illustration of its meaning with a picture (if available), synonym, antonym, and sample sentences (Ow, 2009). Next, the Malay Sign Language Courseware for hearing impaired children was developed with 3D images with video capability and animated rotational view (Savitha & Nur Athirah, 2011). Then the iMSL; Malay Sign Language for the hearing impaired was developed and the contents in iMSL taught users the basic MSL from finger spelling (alphabets), numbers, and some basic things used in daily life (Nur Tahrina, 2012).
The need for the study was triggered by first, the limited number of resources easily available to learn sign language for hearing impaired students. Furthermore, the available resources to learn sign language was not based on the revised curriculum of the special education for the hearing impaired. The revised curriculum for the special education for the hearing impaired was introduced in 2010 (Bahasa
Isyarat Komunikasi, 2010). The learning contents of this study is based on the Bahasa Isyarat Komunikasi (2010). The lack in fulfilment with the revised curriculum for the primary school for the hearing impaired in the available resources, was the need for the study to be conducted. Secondly, this study was carried out to find the best combination of media (SLTI, SLT or SLI) in the presentation modes that will enhance the learning of sign language among the hearing impaired students because hearing impaired people depended on visual to learn (Supalla, 1991;
Luckner & Humphries, 1992; Livingston, 1997; Marschark, Lang, & Albertini, 2002;
Marschark & Hauser, 2012; Mather & Clark, 2012). Based on this, the researcher believed that hearing impaired students need visual media (combination of sign language video, text and image) to learn (Gentry, Chinn, & Moulton, 2004).
Furthermore, the need was supported by the needs analysis conducted among 33 sign language teachers.
The researcher carried out a survey (Appendix A) in April 2013 among sign language teachers. The survey questions were created from literature review and analysis from sign language teachers. Thirty-three sign language teachers responded to the survey. Table 1.1 summarizes the preliminary survey findings and the detailed analysis is attached in Appendix B.
Table 1.1
Preliminary Survey Findings
No. Statements Agree Disagree Not
Sure 1. I am confident in teaching sign language. 45.5% 42.4% 12.1%
2. I use sign language to teach the Malay language.
78.8% 18.2% 3.0%
3. I can understand the sign language found in the sign language book and sign language dictionaries.
75.8% 15.2% 9.1%
4. Sign language courses were provided during my training in college/ university.
57.6% 30.3% 12.1%
5. I was given sufficient training in sign language.
27.3% 57.6% 15.2%
6. Sign language videos will be useful in learning sign language.
78.8% 12.1% 9.1%
7. I encounter problems to correct each student's sign language in class.
42.4% 48.5% 9.1%
8. The varied sign language competence of each student in class is making it hard for me to monitor his/ her progress in sign language.
48.5% 42.4% 9.1%
9. I have difficulties finding resources to teach sign language.
42.4% 45.5% 12.1%
10. No audio visual aids is provided to support my teaching of sign language.
66.7% 18.2% 15.2%
11. Hearing impaired students have problems in learning the Malay language correctly.
69.7% 21.2% 9.1%
12. Hearing impaired students have problems in reading in the Malay language.
81.8% 6.1% 12.1%
13. Hearing impaired students have problems writing in Malay language
84.8% 6.1% 9.1%
14. Hearing impaired students do not have sufficient time to practise their sign language in class.
42.4% 39.4% 18.2%
15. Hearing impaired students feel comfortable to practise their sign language in front of others.
42.4% 36.4% 21.2%
The findings showed that 78.8% of the sign language teachers agreed they use sign language to teach the Malay language and 69.7 % of the teachers indicated that hearing impaired students have problems in learning the Malay language. In addition, 81.8% of the teachers highlighted hearing impaired students have problems reading in the Malay language and 84.8% agreed that hearing impaired students face problems writing in the Malay language. Research by Hoffmeister (2000), Strong and Prinz (2000), Padden and Ramsey (2000), and Chamberlain and Mayberry (2000) found that sign language skills is related to reading skills. According to Mayberry (1993), hearing impaired students exposed to ASL from birth, develop
literacy skills that allow them to outperform hearing impaired students with delayed ASL development on vocabulary tasks and language skills. These findings show that the barrier to hearing impaired students' reading development is not simply unable to speak or read in Malay language but rather poor language development, in any form, signed or spoken.
Facilities for the hearing impaired students, specifically the teaching aids, are still lacking. 66.7% of the teachers surveyed stated that there are no visual aids provided to teach sign language. About 78.8% teachers agreed that sign language videos will be helpful since there are very limited sign language learning resources available for the hearing impaired students, their parents, teachers, the hearing impaired community and the normal hearing community to learn sign language.
Based on the survey results, we can conclude that sign language teachers face challenges in teaching sign language and Malay literacy to the hearing impaired students are also partly due to limited sign language resources.
Due to the challenges faced in duplication of the best teaching and learning methods for the hearing impaired, the courseware was designed, developed and researched upon. The best suitable presentation mode will be developed to enable the hearing impaired students to learn sign language in an interactive and convenient way and at the same time help to learn the Malay language.
1.3 Purpose of the Study
The aim of this study was to design, develop and evaluate three presentation modes in the learning of sign language among hearing impaired students with different cognitive styles. The three presentation modes to be developed are:
(i) Sign Language video + Text + Image (SLTI) (Figure 1.1), (ii) Sign Language video + Text (SLT) (Figure 1.2),
(iii) Sign Language video + Image (SLI) (Figure 1.3).
Figure 1.1 Sign language video + text + image (SLTI)
Figure 1.2 Sign language video + text (SLT) 1.3 Purpose of the Study
The aim of this study was to design, develop and evaluate three presentation modes in the learning of sign language among hearing impaired students with different cognitive styles. The three presentation modes to be developed are:
(i) Sign Language video + Text + Image (SLTI) (Figure 1.1), (ii) Sign Language video + Text (SLT) (Figure 1.2),
(iii) Sign Language video + Image (SLI) (Figure 1.3).
Figure 1.1 Sign language video + text + image (SLTI)
Figure 1.2 Sign language video + text (SLT) 1.3 Purpose of the Study
The aim of this study was to design, develop and evaluate three presentation modes in the learning of sign language among hearing impaired students with different cognitive styles. The three presentation modes to be developed are:
(i) Sign Language video + Text + Image (SLTI) (Figure 1.1), (ii) Sign Language video + Text (SLT) (Figure 1.2),
(iii) Sign Language video + Image (SLI) (Figure 1.3).
Figure 1.1 Sign language video + text + image (SLTI)
Figure 1.2 Sign language video + text (SLT)
Figure 1.3 Sign language video + image (SLI)
1.4 Research Objectives The research objectives are:
(i) To design and develop three presentation modes incorporating sign language video, text and image.
(ii) To establish the effects of using three presentation modes: Sign Language video + Text + Image (SLTI); Sign Language video + Text (SLT); and Sign Language video + Image (SLI) in the learning of sign language on the achievement scores.
(iii) To establish whether there is any significant difference in achievement scores among hearing impaired students with different cognitive styles (Field dependent and Field independent) in using the three presentation modes.
1.5 Research Questions
This study is ruled by the following research questions;
1. Will the hearing impaired students attain different achievement scores among the three presentation modes?
Figure 1.3 Sign language video + image (SLI)
1.4 Research Objectives The research objectives are:
(i) To design and develop three presentation modes incorporating sign language video, text and image.
(ii) To establish the effects of using three presentation modes: Sign Language video + Text + Image (SLTI); Sign Language video + Text (SLT); and Sign Language video + Image (SLI) in the learning of sign language on the achievement scores.
(iii) To establish whether there is any significant difference in achievement scores among hearing impaired students with different cognitive styles (Field dependent and Field independent) in using the three presentation modes.
1.5 Research Questions
This study is ruled by the following research questions;
1. Will the hearing impaired students attain different achievement scores among the three presentation modes?
Figure 1.3 Sign language video + image (SLI)
1.4 Research Objectives The research objectives are:
(i) To design and develop three presentation modes incorporating sign language video, text and image.
(ii) To establish the effects of using three presentation modes: Sign Language video + Text + Image (SLTI); Sign Language video + Text (SLT); and Sign Language video + Image (SLI) in the learning of sign language on the achievement scores.
(iii) To establish whether there is any significant difference in achievement scores among hearing impaired students with different cognitive styles (Field dependent and Field independent) in using the three presentation modes.
1.5 Research Questions
This study is ruled by the following research questions;
1. Will the hearing impaired students attain different achievement scores among the three presentation modes?
1.1 Will the hearing impaired students using the Sign Language video + Text + Image (SLTI) mode attain significantly higher achievement scores (AS) than hearing impaired students using the Sign Language video + Text (SLT) mode?
1.2 Will hearing impaired students using the Sign Language video + Text + Image (SLTI) mode attain significantly higher achievement scores (AS) than hearing impaired students using the Sign Language video + Image (SLI) mode?
1.3 Will hearing impaired students using the Sign Language video + Text (SLT) mode attain significantly higher achievement scores (AS) than hearing impaired students using the Sign Language video + Image (SLI) mode?
2. Will the hearing impaired students with different cognitive styles, Field dependent (FD) and Field independent (FI) attain different achievement scores among the three presentation modes?
2.1 Will FD hearing impaired students using the Sign Language video + Text + Image (SLTI) mode attain significantly higher achievement scores (AS) than FD hearing impaired students using the Sign Language video + Text (SLT) mode?
2.2 Will FD hearing impaired students using the Sign Language video + Text + Image (SLTI) mode attain significantly higher achievement scores (AS) than FD hearing impaired students using the Sign Language video + Image (SLI) mode?
2.3 Will FD hearing impaired students using the Sign Language video + Text (SLT) mode attain significantly higher achievement scores (AS) than FD hearing impaired students using the Sign Language video + Image (SLI) mode?
2.4 Are there interaction effects among presentation modes and cognitive styles on the achievement scores?
1.6 Research Hypotheses
Based on the research questions, the researcher's purpose is to test the following null hypotheses formulated from the research questions. The statistical significance of .05 is used to test the null hypotheses.
H01 There is no significant difference in the mean achievement scores (AS) among the hearing impaired students using the three presentation modes (SLTI, SLT and SLI).
ASSLTI = ASSLT= ASSLI
H01.1 There is no significant difference in the mean achievement scores (AS) between the hearing impaired students using the SLTI mode and the SLT mode.
ASSLTI = ASSLT
H01.2 There is no significant difference in the mean achievement scores (AS) between the hearing impaired students using the SLTI mode and the SLI mode.
ASSLTI = ASSLI
H01.3 There is no significant difference in the mean achievement scores (AS) between the hearing impaired students using the SLT mode and the SLI mode.
ASSLT= ASSLI
H02 There is no significant difference in the mean achievement scores (AS) between the hearing impaired students cognitive styles (FD and FI) in the three presentation modes (SLTI, SLT and SLI).
ASFI = ASFD
H02.1 There is no significant difference in the mean achievement scores (AS) between FD hearing impaired students using the SLTI mode and FD hearing impaired students using the SLT mode.
ASFD-SLTI= ASFD-SLT
H02.2 There is no significant difference in the mean achievement scores (AS) between FD hearing impaired students using the SLTI mode and FD hearing impaired students using the SLI mode.
ASFD-SLTI= ASFD-SLI
H02.3 There is no significant difference in the mean achievement scores (AS) between FD hearing impaired students using the SLT mode and FD hearing impaired students using the SLI mode.
ASFD-SLT= ASFD-SLI
H02.4 There is no interaction effect between the presentation modes and cognitive styles on the mean achievement scores.
1.7 Significance of the Study
This study is significant because it examines the effect of the three presentation modes (SLTI, SLT, SLI) on hearing impaired students in the learning of sign language. According to Brown (2000) who stated that meaningful learning occurs when learning contents involve text, image and screen literacy, supported the significance and relevance of this research. This study hopes to identify the type of presentation mode (SLTI, SLT, SLI) in a sign language learning environment that will foster appropriate sign language learning among hearing impaired students of different cognitive styles. Through the ongoing evaluation done during the design and development process of the presentation modes, a useable learning environment and design principles are produced. This study suggests a practical instructional design and development framework that can guide future multimedia developmental efforts.
This study also contributes to the development of teaching strategies and resources for the hearing impaired students. The findings will add to the design of instructional technology for the learning of sign language in the Sign Language Curriculum Specifications. The results of this study will provide ample resource for curriculum designers to develop instructional materials for the hearing impaired students. This study focuses on the relationship between the presentation mode on hearing impaired students with different cognitive styles to increase the achievement scores in the learning of sign language. This study is important as the sign language video with image and text will make a deep impact in the teaching and learning of sign language.
The courseware designed is navigable, user-friendly, and self-paced. The hearing impaired students can select the content to learn. The courseware encourages self paced learning and self evaluation. It guides the hearing impaired students systematically and at the same time they learn at their own pace, whereby they can begin and pause the lessons as well as replay the lessons again at a pace effective to them. The hearing impaired students can decide when, where, what and how fast to learn sign language. According to Scheiter and Gerjets (2007), learner control supports active learning and motivates the learners. The hearing impaired students will learn to be more self-reliant in forming their learning strategy. This will definitely help low ability learners from being disappointed and the high ability learners from getting uninterested (Rashid, Aini, Majid, & Chow, 2002). Moreover, the courseware is meant for hearing impaired students to keep on drilling and practising learning the sign language at their own pace. Finally, the researcher hopes that this study can help hearing impaired students, parents with hearing impaired children, and normal hearing people who are interested to learn sign language benefit from this study.
1.8 Theoretical Framework
The following theories form the theoretical framework of this study;
1.8.1 Paivio’s Dual Coding Theory (Paivio, 1986) 1.8.2 Sweller’s Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller, 1999)
1.8.3 Mayer’s Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (Mayer, 2001) 1.8.4 Cummins' Linguistic Interdependence Theory (Cummin's 1979)
A short explanation of the theories is given below and additional explanations as how it is related to the hearing impaired students are given in Chapter 2. Figure 1.4 is the theoretical framework of this study.
Figure 1.4 Theoretical Framework
1.8.1 Paivio’s Dual Coding Theory
The Dual Coding Theory suggested by Paivio (1986) gave equal emphasis to verbal and non-verbal processing. Dual Coding Theory involves two subsystems, as shown in Figure 1.5, a verbal system, logogens, or words (either spoken or written), and the nonverbal system, imagens, or images (Paivio, 2007; 2014). Paivio’s Dual Coding Theory (1986) stated that the verbal and non-verbal processing systems were important in language learning. Textbooks and educational literature use written words (logogens) and images/ illustrations (imagens) to relay information to the reader. Paivio proposed that this method, which combines the logogens and imagens coding systems, enhances the reader’s learning abilities and retention to a greater degree than using only one coding system, such as text only or image only, or audio only (Paivio, 2007).
Figure 1.5 Dual Coding Theory (Paivio, 1986)
Paivio's Dual Coding Theory (1986) suggested that the logogen and the imagen, work together to form associations in the mind. When a reader decodes the words, he forms referential connections between the words and the mental images (Clark & Paivio, 1991). For example, when you read a word you think about the meaning and also make a connection to the image of that word or picture an image in your mind’s eye (Picker, 2013). The specific visual representation will vary among readers, but exists (Wood & Endres, 2004; Gambrell & Jawitz, 1993; Gambrell &
Bales 1986).
1.8.2 Sweller’s Cognitive Load Theory
Cognitive Load Theory according to Sweller, Van Merrienboer and Pass (1998) was made up of a limited working memory with separate processing information inputs for visual and auditory that interacted with an unlimited long-term memory. According to Sweller et al. (1998), intrinsic cognitive load, extraneous cognitive load, and germane cognitive load are three types of cognitive load. Intrinsic cognitive load happens in an interaction between individual differences like students’
past knowledge or experiences with the nature of the instructional materials. For example, intrinsic cognitive load will rise if a student is facing a complex instructional content. But, if a student encounters a situation that they have experienced before, they will produce smaller levels of intrinsic load (Paas, Tuovinen, Tabbers, & Van Gerven, 2003; Sweller et al., 1998).
Germane cognitive load happens when schemas and mental models are constructed and stored in long-term memory. Schemas classify information in long- term memory that helps to understand new situations help to reduce working memory load (Sweller et al., 1998). Schemas and mental models help learning by automating the new information to be learned, thus contribute to germane load (Paas, et al. 2003; Sweller et al., 1998).
Extraneous cognitive load happens when the presentation mode and learning activities interferes with schema formation and automation (Sweller et al., 1998).
The extraneous load is triggered by the format of the instruction rather than learning content (Sweller et al., 1998). According to Sweller et al. (1998), the effects of high extraneous load may not be obvious when intrinsic and germane load are low.
1.8.3 Mayer’s Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning
The multimedia principle proposed that “people learn more deeply from words and pictures than from words alone” (Mayer, 2001). This model is based upon three primary assumptions:
i. Visual and auditory information are processed through separate and distinct information processing channels.
ii. Each channel is limited in its ability to process information.
iii. Processing information in channels is an active cognitive process designed to construct coherent mental representations (Mayer, 2001).
According to Mayer (2001, p. 54), the learner must engage in five cognitive processes (Figure 1.6), that is;
i. selecting relevant words for processing in verbal working memory, ii. selecting relevant images for processing in visual working memory, iii. organizing selected words into a verbal mental model,
iv. organizing selected images into a visual mental model, and
v. integrating verbal and visual representations as well as prior knowledge.
S = selecting, O = organising, I = integrating
Figure 1.6 Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (Mayer, 2001)
According to Mayer (2001), only a limited amount of information can be processed in a channel at a time, and the information can only be interpreted by creating mental representations. The multimedia presentation of text, images and auditory information are selected and organized to produce logical mental constructs
memory, and long-term memory. Mayer (2001; 2009) carried out a series of studies identifying multimedia principles that aids recall and transfer of information with the assumption that the learner has capacity to store pictorial and verbal information and finally integrate them during the learning process.
1.8.4 Cummins' Linguistic Interdependence Theory
Linguistic Interdependence Theory proposes that the relationship of the first language supports the learning of another language (Cummins, 2000; 2001; 2006).
This theory puts forward that every language contains surface features and underlying those surface appearance of language are proficiencies that are common across languages (Cummins, 2001). Cummins (2001) proposed a Common Underlying Proficiency (CUP) model where the first language and the second language were seen as interdependent in a bilingual approach.
Cummins' (1980; 2001) CUP model is represented with the "dual iceberg metaphor", where the two peaks of the iceberg are equal for totally bilingual individuals. The cognitive language proficiency that is much more significant is not obvious in daily communication is below the surface. According to Cummins (1980;
2001), the higher order thinking skills are located in the depths of this model (Cummins, 1980; 2001). The model "Dual Iceberg" is shown in Figure 1.7.
Figure 1.7. “Dual Iceberg” Representation of bilingual proficiency (Cummins, 2001)
According to Branford and Donovan (2005) prior knowledge is needed for the interpretation of text. Cummins (2000) stated that a student who had strong conceptual knowledge in the first language, has more cognitive ability to read the text in the second language. The studies by Baker (2001), Cummins (2000), Freeman and Freeman (1998) found significant relationship between ASL skill and English literacy supported the Linguistic Interdependence Theory (Cummins, 2006).
According to Cummins (2003) and Hakuta (1986), linguistic knowledge in the first language transfers to the acquisition process of learning the second language.
Nover and Andrews (1998), Stone (1995), Johnson et al. (1989) have suggested that the primary language for hearing impaired children is sign language because it can be easily learned by them. Furthermore, sign language can provide linguistic access to language skills.
Hearing impaired students’ below-average reading skills is likely from lacking of sign language instruction, rather than the lacking of hearing impaired
COMMON UNDERLYING PROFICIENCY
failing to develop the first language results in challenges in academic and vocational success (Niemann, Greenstein, & David, 2004; Strong & Prinz, 1997). According to Chamberlain and Mayberry (2000), ASL development is related to reading development in hearing impaired students whose primary language is sign language.
1.9 Research Framework
The research framework in Figure 1.8 displays the connections between the variables. The independent variables are the three presentation modes namely Sign Language video, Text and Image (SLTI); Sign Language video and Text (SLT); and Sign Language video and Image (SLI). The dependent variable is the hearing impaired students’ achievement scores. The moderator variable is the cognitive styles.
Figure 1.8 Research framework
1.10 Limitations of the Study
It is accepted that there are limitations which may affect the overview of the research in this study. First, this study's samples are restricted to only hearing impaired students recruited from hearing impaired schools in Peninsular Malaysia.
